DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/30/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 discloses the limitation “a peeling direction”. It is not clear to the Examiner what exactly is a peeling direction, the claim has not clearly defined a peeling direction. The peeling direction could be considered vertical, horizontal, X direction, Y direction, Z direction [on a defined X axis coordinate], parallel or perpendicular to a nozzle row etc. Please amend and/or advise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 13, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reid (U.S. Pat. 5,414,454)
Regarding claim 1, a liquid ejection head (42) comprising: an ejection orifice forming surface including a plurality of ejection orifices (17) from which liquid is to be ejected (Figure 3; Column 2, Lines 44-57)
A protection tape (40) bonded to the ejection orifice forming surface in a peelable manner (Figure 3)
Wherein the protection tape includes a base material and an adhesive layer laminated on the base material (adhesive polymer tape 40), and the adhesive layer is brought into contact with the ejection orifice forming surface (Figure 3; Column 2, Lines 44-57)
Wherein the protection tape further includes at least one penetration portion (slits 46) that penetrates at least the base material in a thickness direction of the protection tape at a position being substantially flat and distant from the plurality of ejection orifices in the ejection orifice forming surface [slit is formed on a flat surface offset from the ejection orifice; Figure 4] (Figures 3-4; Column 2, Line 44 – Column 3, Line 5)
Regarding claim 2, wherein the at least one penetration portion penetrates the protection tape in the thickness direction (Figures 3-4; Column 2, Line 44 – Column 3, Line 5)
Regarding claim 4, wherein the at least one penetration portion is at least one slit (Figures 3-4; Column 2, Line 44 – Column 3, Line 5)
Regarding claim 13, wherein the ejection orifice forming surface includes a peripheral edge portion extending in a direction crossing a peeling direction of the protection tape; and wherein the at least one slit is formed between the peripheral edge portion and an ejection orifice row closes to the peripheral edge portion (Figures 3-4; Column 2, Line 44 – Column 3, Line 5)
Regarding claim 19, a protection tape to be bonded to an ejection orifice forming surface of a liquid ejection head in a peelable manner (Figure 3), wherein the ejection orifice forming surface includes a plurality of ejection orifices from which liquid is to be ejected, the protection tape comprising:
A base material; an adhesive layer that is laminated on the base material (adhesive polymer tape 40), and is brought into contact with the ejection orifice forming surface (Figure 3)
At least one penetration portion (slits 46) that penetrates at least the base material in a thickness direction of the protection tape at a position being substantially flat and distant from the plurality of ejection orifices in the ejection orifice forming surface [slit is formed on a flat surface offset from the ejection orifice; Figure 4] (Figures 3-4; Column 2, Line 44 – Column 3, Line 5)
Regarding claim 20, a manufacturing method for a liquid ejection head that includes an ejection orifice forming surface including a plurality of ejection orifices from which liquid is to be ejected, the manufacturing method comprising:
Forming at least one penetration portion (slits 46) in at least a base material of a protection tape, which includes the base material and an adhesive layer laminated on the base material (adhesive polymer tape 40), such that the at least one penetration portion penetrates at least the base material in a thickness direction of the protection tape (Figure 3)
Bonding the protection tape having the at least one penetration portion formed in the protection tape to the ejection orifice forming surface in a peelable manner so as to bring the adhesive layer into contact with the ejection orifice forming surface (Figures 3-4; Column 2, Line 44 – Column 3, Line 5)
Wherein the at least one penetration portion is formed at a position being substantially flat and distant from the plurality of ejection orifices in the ejection orifice forming surface [slit is formed on a flat surface offset from the ejection orifice; Figure 4] (Figures 3-4; Column 2, Line 44 – Column 3, Line 5)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid (U.S. Pat. 5,414,454)
Regarding claim 15, Reid discloses the claimed invention except for at least one slit is equal to or larger than 0.2 millimeter (mm) and equal to or smaller than 0.5 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form at least one slit is equal to or larger than 0.2 millimeter (mm) and equal to or smaller than 0.5 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int eh prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate at least one slit is equal to or larger than 0.2 millimeter (mm) and equal to or smaller than 0.5 mm, for the purpose of securing the nozzle tape to the print head and preserving alignment (Abstract)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 3 is the inclusion of the limitation of wherein gas permeability of the base material is lower than gas permeability of the adhesive layer, and the at least one penetration portion penetrates only the base material in the thickness direction. It is this limitation found in each of the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claims 5-12 is the inclusion of the limitation of a plurality of ejection orifice rows that are each formed of the plurality of ejection orifices, and are each combined with any one of the plurality of liquid supply paths; wherein the at least one slit is formed between two ejection orifice rows that are combined with different liquid supply paths, respectively, and are adjacent to each other. It is this limitation found in each of the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S UHLENHAKE whose telephone number is (571)272-5916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Douglas X. Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON S UHLENHAKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 January 15, 2026